Where do the “Perishing Heathens” Go?

In 1843, Robert Moffat preached at the Barbican Chapel a sermon that raised the searching question of the eternal destination of those in foreign lands. He asked,

“Who can look to the East Indies now, and to China now; who can look to those interesting portions of the glove, because of the most populous, the most dense, without yeaning with compassion over the teeming millions that are there moving onward every day like some vast funeral procession; onward and downward, sadly and slowly, but certainly to the regions of woe? ‘Oh, you are a hard man,’ some might say; ‘do you think they will go to hell?’ Where do they go to? Do they go to heaven? All idolaters, we are told, have their portion in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone. I wish that someone would enlighten my mind, if it wants light on this subject, and tell me whether or not all the heathen have perished, all idolaters have perished. But we know that nothing that is unclean, or that loveth and maketh a lie, can enter the holy place. Where do they go to?”

Moffat’s intention, as interpreted by Brian Stanley in The BIble and the Flag, was to stir up a passion for missions amongst British Christians. Who better to stir up this interest than Moffat, who had already served for approximately nineteen years in South Africa amongst the Batswana people and would later become the father-in-law of David Livingstone. Yet this nagging question of where the “perishing heathen” shall go has haunted many missionaries and theologians. You can consider the contributions in Zondervan’s Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World for an example of the differing opinions on the subject (the kindle version is only $5.98).

Stanley suggests that Moffat was seriously wrestling with the reasonable difficulty of how unbelievers who had not heard the gospel could be sent to hell (i.e., eternal punishment). In fact, he suggests that even Livingstone struggled with this question until the death of Chief Sebituane of the Makololo people. Livingstone is quoted as saying, “The deep dark question of what is to become of such as he, must, however, be lef where we find it, believing that, assuredly, the “Judge of all the earth will do right”.’ The author of The BIble and the Flag also points us to Henry Venn, an early missiologist, who stated that he could not reach “any firm conclusion in my own judgment either from scripture or reason” as to the final state of the “heathen.”

Any opinion on this subject is going to be, I think, complex. Reflection often turns to the Pauline instruction in Romans 1:20 along with 2:13-16. On one hand, it seems as if Paul says that no one has an excuse. But on the other hand, some exegete him to suggest that some fulfill the requirements of the Law and are excused.

Your participation encouraged: I’m curious what you think and why you believe what you believe. What do you think happens to the countless thousands of people who die without ever hearing about the gospel of Jesus Christ, his cross and resurrection, and overall Christian message. Where do they go? Why are they held accountable or not? If you are a Christian, what Scriptures do you look to and how do you understand the texts that seem to oppose your view? If you are not a Christian, why are you on this blog? Just kidding! If you aren’t a Christian I’d love your opinion too! If you are of a different faith, how does your tradition answer this question?

For the record, I’m using the word “heathen” in the historical sense. I prefer to use the word “people” or “non-Christian” or “unbeliever” rather than “pagan” or “heathen.” I find it’s a little more helpful in dialoging with people. Yet in this context, it’s simply an acknowledgement of how Evangelical missiologists, missionaries, theologians, and Christians tended to use the term.

So, what do you think?

Comments

comments

13 Comments

Kenny Burchard
on October 25, 2013 at 2:23 pm

Luke – as a starting place for MORE dialogue with you, and with the word-picture of “story” to illustrate my convictions, I believe that they are “written out of the story” and after a time, they cease to be. SO – all my cards on the table, at this point in my theological understanding of Hell, I am neither a universalist (believing that they will be saved) nor a believer in eternal conscious torment because (1) I do not believe in the immortality of the soul apart from salvation, and (2) I do not believe that eternal punishment means eternally conscious of torment, but rather, eternally removed from the story. Also, for the record, my last sentence contains 70 words. Texts that seem to reinforce my idea:
1. 1 Tim. 6:16
2. Ezek. 18:20
3. The whole flood story (everyone not on the Ark was destroyed).
4. The Sodom story (everyone was destroyed)

There is no illustration in the O.T. image of punishment that involves being taken off to another place and tortured forever.

Finally, my theological position (as it is with respect to my wesleyan-arminian convictions) is rooted in the belief that God is good and just, and it is not good or just to torture a person in hell forever – especially if they never heard the gospel. Again, this is not a comprehensive response, but it is my starting place for more dialogue with you. In short, I believe in conditional immorality of humans because I think that’s what the bible teaches.

Where do they go? They go out of the story. They are blotted out of the book, and are not part of the eternal future that will last forever. God will not be keeping a torture chamber call hell in the far recesses of the eternal state. That’s my 2 cents for further engagement.

Thoughtful response. Since John Stott held to a similar position, I can’t call you a flaming heretic just yet 🙂

How do you understand the two passages from Romans that I referenced? The first seems to make it abundantly clear that no one has an excuse when they stand before God and the second passage seems to suggest that it’s possible some will be excused. I know exegetes don’t all agree on that last one, so I’m just curious.

Anyway, you would define yourself as holding to more of an exclusive theology with the addendum that you do not believe in eternal conscious torment of the soul, right?

“Where do bad folks go when they die? they don’t go to heaven where the angels fly. They go to a lake of fire and fry. See em again on the fourth of July” Nirvana The Unplugged Album (Written by the meat puppets)

Fxn2fly
on October 26, 2013 at 12:29 am

Saw a writer on TBN last night and he had wrote a book on an experience called”23 minutes in Hell”..He was not dead just out of body..Dr. Bill Riece I think…pretty gruesome life if you don’t say yes to the One True Life!!

Commander
on October 26, 2013 at 1:15 pm

I think there are several things to consider here. Let’s first look at the problem:

1. Jesus talked about confessing Him/denying Him before men in Mat. 10:32-33, but that scenario doesn’t include those who never heard of Him.

2. However, “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).”

It seems people conclude (and I’d argue falsely conclude) from the verse in Acts that one must know who Jesus was to be saved and covered by the blood of Jesus… so long as you confess Him. This line of thought however does not solely include those from unreached areas of the globe, but also infants, mentally disabled, and anyone who lived prior to Christ. So, I don’t think it’s particularly accurate to turn the name of Jesus into some kind of ritualistic recital. I think all the verse in Acts says is that only in Him can anyone be saved.

This is where I take a Romans 2:13-16 approach. Romans 1 seems more of an argument against atheism and for the existence of the Creator (along the lines of Psalm 14) than it does dealing with the theology of those who never heard the gospel. Romans 2 is consistent with the rest of scripture in that only through knowledge of law/sin is there a violation, and that God does not take into account acts done in ignorance (Rom. 4:15, Acts 17:30, James 4:17, etc.).

However, I believe that those who are a law to themselves by their own conscience, ultimately fail themselves, which is also sin. A heathen can know that lying is wrong without knowledge of God’s law, and yet he will still tell a lie, therefore becoming accountable to God by his own standard (Mat. 7:2). So really, I don’t feel Romans 2 is a get out of hell card either. In the end, all have sinned, and only in Christ can they be saved. My theology? “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice (John 18:37).” Faith comes by hearing, yes, but that hearing doesn’t have to come from us all the time. Just ask Paul. God can reach people without us, and if anyone would receive the love of the truth, then God will reach them in some form or another.

Commander
on October 26, 2013 at 1:15 pm

Kenny, my problem with your idea here is that I don’t see how you can be eternally punished if “after a time, you cease to be.” That constitutes finality, not eternity. Likewise, how is it punishment if I’m not around/aware to regret it? That just doesn’t make any sense to me. Additionally, Revelation 20:10 says the following:

“And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

This verse clearly states two things: 1. Punishment is torment, not ceasing to be part of the story. 2. Punishment does not end, rather lasts “forever and ever.” So when we consider Jesus’ comments of eternal punishment in Mat. 25:46, it should be understood that He is not referring to eternal non-existence, rather eternal torment. How can this be if God alone possesses immortality, as you pointed out in 1 Tim. 6:16? Neither the devil, nor the beast, nor the false prophet possess immortality, but that doesn’t stop them from being eternally tormented. I don’t know, but my guess is that since all life comes from God to begin with, and since it is He who sustains us now, and in eternity, the only way I can see it is that He also sustains those who are to be punished for eternity.

I was actually wrestling with this notion recently. Personally, I’d rather not believe in an eternal hell, but as far as I can tell, scripture testifies otherwise. If you’ve anything to add, I’d be happy to hear it.

Kenny Burchard
on October 26, 2013 at 1:44 pm

Commander – I actually enjoy irenic dialogue about such things. Over the years I have done a lot of thinking about hell (and the three primary views). It was Ed Fudge who convinced me to change my mind (get his book, “The Fire That Consumes”). In it, responding to the typical question of the text you quoted (Rev. 20:10), Fudge writes:
———–
“Throughout this study, we have watched as traditionalist authors repeatedly read straightforward, non-symbolic texts, commenting that such texts, if taken alone, certainly teach extinction, but that Rev 14:9–11 and Rev 20:10 do not allow that result. I cannot blame traditionalist advocates for wanting to do that, since these two Revelation texts contain the strongest biblical statements that seemingly favor unending conscious torment.

The fact remains, however, that symbolic language should always be interpreted in light of plain language, and not the other way around. “It has been a common hermeneutical principle,” Thomas Johnson rightly observes, “to let didactic passages establish teachings and then find them illustrated or fleshed out in symbolic passages.”

With that in mind, and considering the overwhelming weight of Scripture teaching in favor of everlasting extinction, I am compelled to go with the preponderance of the evidence and say that not only wicked humans, but also wicked angels and (most probably) even the devil himself, will finally be wiped out and be no more. “To allow this one set of passages from an apocalypse to dictate the teaching of the rest of Scripture is unwise and improper when seeking to form a sound and faithful biblical eschatology.” (p. 252).

—————

In other words, Fudge would say (and I agree) that the language of that text, taken in REMOTE context with the whole teaching of scripture should be interpreted in the light of destruction, and that the idea of destruction should not be dismissed in light of THIS text. This is because the whole theme of the “destiny of the wicked” is, for the most part, about being destroyed. In other words, this text is symbolic of destruction that is eternal. If it is not symbolic, then it is a proof-text that teaches something that, for the most part, the rest of the Bible simply does not teach.

For the sake of dialogue (which I hope will continue) – what do you make of this hermeneutical approach, and if you embraced it, how would it affect your view of the rest of the teaching of scripture on the destiny of the wicked?

Finally – If you cease to be… FOREVER, then that constitutes BOTH finality AND eternity in that you can never reverse the outcome once you are destroyed. You are ETERNALLY destroyed. You no longer exist, and never will again. I see no contradiction there. Rather, I see synthesis between both the idea of “eternal” and “destroyed” which are both terms used to reference the ultimate destiny of the wicked. That’s all for now. Let’s continue.

Thanks for your response. I think we’re apparently headed in the same direction.

Commander
on October 26, 2013 at 2:44 pm

That’s a fair point Kenny, but wouldn’t you also say that in addition to prophecy being symbolic, it is also historical? Essentially, it is an order of events described in a symbolic manner. I don’t think it’s in good judgment to discard the historic element of prophecy because of it’s symbolic nature. For instance, characters such as the beast and false prophet are often described symbolically, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re real characters, who will do real things. There may have been people who figured that the Messiah wouldn’t literally ride a donkey into Jerusalem, but that literally happened, right?

Prophecy is all about declaring what will happen, and as we all know, God is very specific about details. The key to understanding prophecy is being able to distinguish what is symbolic vs. what is literal. Symbolism is always used to represent something or someone… but it is an accurate depiction. In Rev. 20:10, we see symbolism used to describe the characters, but what will happen to them is a different story. I believe that is literal, because what else could that possibly represent? Being tormented day and night does not sound like symbolism, nor does it accurately depict the idea of ceasing to exist.

This of course brings us to other points in scripture where the words “death, perish, and destroyed” are used. To your point, those words DO mean ceasing to exist… at least to us… in this life. Does that really mean the same thing on a spiritual, supernatural level? Does that mean the same thing to God? Do you remember when God gave the commandment to Adam about not eating from the tree? He said, “For in the day that you eat from it you will surely die (Gen 2:17).”

Now, Adam did die, but not in the day he ate from it. What happened that day? God cursed the world and everything suffered as a result. To me, this is grounds for questioning what death really is on a spiritual level. The only time I’ve seen the Bible get into specifics about what all spiritual death entails is when it talks about hell and eternal condemnation. So as of right now, I read life and death the same way I do blessings and curses. I find it to be the constant duality within the language of scripture.

Jon Stovell
on October 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm

The problem of “Where do those who never heard/understood the gospel go when they die, heaven or hell?” is based on one, entirely unbiblical theological assumption: the idea that one’s everlasting condition is determined at the moment of death. This idea, typically referred to as “the particular judgement,” is nowhere described in the Bible. Jesus only ever speaks of “the final judgement,” which will take place when he returns. According to all that he says about the matter, it will be then that he decides who will participate in everlasting life and who won’t. The rest of the New Testament follows this same line, too. So, the notion that a person’s fate is sealed when they die is unbiblical, despite the fact that it has been widespread in the theological tradition for centuries. Moreover, whenever both the general resurrection and the final judgment are discussed in the same context, the order of events is always resurrection first, then judgement. This means EVERYone will see Christ face to face BEFORE he renders his final decision about them.

Mr. Moffat was wrong. The unevangelized masses were not marching into hellfire; they were and are marching into the grave, like all human beings, there to await the day when they will be raised to meet the Lord and face his decision about their place (or lack of it) in his redeemed world.

Kenny Burchard
on October 26, 2013 at 5:42 pm

haha! Jon!!! — okay, this is a appeal to the idea of “soul sleep” yes? Something else? Is it your sense that “absent from the body, present with the Lord” refers to something else? Do you think you’ll be conscious of anything after you’re “un-bodied,” and before judgment, to use a C.S. Lewis term?

Thanks for joining the conversation, Jon. I’m glad to see you “out and about” these days since it’s been awhile. I hope you are feeling better and rested and all of that? How are things going?

Okay, onto the subject at hand!

Isn’t this kind of splitting hairs over the big question behind Moffat and everyone else who has wondered about the fate of people after death? I actually agree with the technical and systematic approach you are taking here about individual eschatology and don’t see your view necessitating “soul sleep” (as I’m sure you’ll tell Kenny). And I have a big “amen” in regards to their not being multiple judgments per Dispensational influences. But it seems like your response leaves a lot of pastoral questions left unanswered and I’d really like to know what you think in response to these big questions because you are (1) a theologian and (2) aware of the importance of pastoral theology. Sooooooo, don’t leave us hanging!!!! 😉

The question is, as I understand it, about the necessity of people responding specifically to the call of the gospel in this life and how are we to understand the eternal fate of those who have not heard that gospel.

I’m actually very interested to hear your thoughts based on Romans 2 and the verses I noted…

Anyway, I can’t wait for to read your thoughts as you are fun to think with!

Jon Stovell
on October 29, 2013 at 11:10 am

Luke:
I’m feeling much better now than a few weeks ago. It’s still a bit up and down, but I’m starting to be able to get back into some work now (albeit slowly). Of course, now I have a couple months worth of stuff to decide what I ought to do about.

No, I don’t think it is splitting hairs at all. I consider it to be a substantial and vitally important point. The inclusion of the notion of a particular judgement in Christian theology causes a fundamental shift in our understanding of the very purpose of preaching the gospel. With this notion, the primary and most pressing need is to get individuals to become Christians before they die so that they can be diverted from eternal perdition into eternal glory. This way of thinking does provide an urgent and simply understood motivation to evangelize and support missionaries (which is what Moffat and everyone else uses it for), but it is nevertheless a sadly truncated version of the purpose of the Great Commission compared to what we get when stick to the NT’s own eschatological structures. When we set aside the idea of a particular judgement and stick with the NT’s scenario, the reason to make disciples of all nations in this life is because that is a vital element in the overall project of God’s redemptive realization of his kingdom in this world. Since God’s goal is to redeem and transform creation as a whole, including human individuals, societies, and all its non-human aspects and elements, the reason to call people to be disciples today is so that we can all participate in that redemptive work here and now.

Disciples work to further God’s purposes as the Spirit directs them. Therefore, they work to make this world more like the way it will be when Jesus returns and God’s eschatological project is fulfilled. This both makes life better now and increases the fullness of the renewed creation that we look forward to. In other words, evangelization isn’t merely about making sure people will go to heaven in the afterlife; it is about enabling people to participate in heaven-coming-to-earth in this life.

This all makes pretty good sense of the verses you mentioned from Romans, I think, especially when we realize with 1 Cor 3:10–15 and Rev 20:11–12 that there are two essential components to the final judgement: the decision about whether we ourselves will continue on into the life of the age to come, and the decision about what among our works will continue on into the life of the age to come. On the one hand, there will be judgement of our hearts (i.e. whether turned towards God or away) to determine whether we will be fit participants in his redeemed world. But on the other hand, there is a whole vast complex of events in the history of the cosmos that also need to be judged in order to decide what will be allowed to carry over into the age to come and continue to be part of its living history and what must be cut off so that it has no more evil effects and thus become part of only the creation’s past history. Bound up with this latter judgement is the question of judgement of our works and whether he will be able to say to us, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” or whether we will be saved like one escaping from a burning building. Thus it is entirely possible to say with Rom 2 that “he will reward each according to their works” and that even those who have no knowledge of God in this life will be judged according to the gospel of Christ. The decision about whether one passes into everlasting life will e made only once one is finally face-to-face with Christ, and the decision about what one is commended for will be made in accordance with God’s eschatological goals for his creation.

Does that help answer the question, my friend? 🙂

Kenny:
Laying aside the notion of particular judgement does not necessarily entail the idea of soul sleep. I do consider that a viable way to try to imagine the intermediate state, since it closely corresponds to the OT’s imagery of what happens in Sheol, but it is not the only viable way. One could also imagine the intermediate state with very active imagery while rejecting the idea of a particular judgement, including a division between those who enjoy the divine presence and those who do not while they await resurrection. If one thinks of the intermediate state this way, then being with Christ in the intermediate state can be understood simply as an extension of our being with him now. In this life Christians enjoy his presence via the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit remains with us in whatever condition we enter between death and resurrection.

As a side note, I’m pretty strongly convinced that “absent from the body, present with the Lord,” is a phrase that we tend to misunderstand entirely in the typical interpretation of 2 Cor 5:1–9 (and certain translations don’t help when they smooth out the apparently odd construction of ideas based on what the translator assumes it “must” mean). The desire Paul is describing in that passage is not a desire to leave the earth behind for a disembodied afterlife of bliss, but the desire to leave this present embodied life of suffering behind for the glory of the embodied resurrection life to come. However, Phil 1:23 does seem to be about the intermediate state, so there is still some biblical support for the belief that Christians enjoy Christ’s presence in the intermediate state, at least in some unspecified fashion.

As for whether the dead are conscious of anything, etc., I’m not sure that the question is actually sensical. We are made to be embodied creatures, with no clear division between body and soul. To die is to have this fundamental unity torn asunder. What would human consciousness be like when stripped of all the senses through which we become conscious of other things? It’s nearly impossible to imagine. All we can do is deploy metaphors and imagery, and which ones we choose largely determine how we might answer that question.